Cargando…

The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that complaints after episiotomy repair depend on the method and material used for repair. The objective of our study was to determine which of two frequently used suture materials, Monocryl® (poliglecaprone 25) and Vicryl Rapide™ (polyglactin 910), is superio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Odijk, Roeland, Hennipman, Bernadette, Rousian, Melek, Madani, Khadija, Dijksterhuis, Marja, de Leeuw, Jan Willem, van Hof, Arjan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5644141/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29037181
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8
_version_ 1783271673982615552
author Odijk, Roeland
Hennipman, Bernadette
Rousian, Melek
Madani, Khadija
Dijksterhuis, Marja
de Leeuw, Jan Willem
van Hof, Arjan
author_facet Odijk, Roeland
Hennipman, Bernadette
Rousian, Melek
Madani, Khadija
Dijksterhuis, Marja
de Leeuw, Jan Willem
van Hof, Arjan
author_sort Odijk, Roeland
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that complaints after episiotomy repair depend on the method and material used for repair. The objective of our study was to determine which of two frequently used suture materials, Monocryl® (poliglecaprone 25) and Vicryl Rapide™ (polyglactin 910), is superior for intracutaneous closure of the skin in mediolateral episiotomies. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial performed in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013 250 primiparous women with uncomplicated mediolateral episiotomies were randomly allocated to intracutaneous skin closure with either Monocryl® or Vicryl Rapide™. All other layers were sutured with Vicryl 2-0 and Vicryl 0 in both groups. Pain scores and complications were documented using questionnaires during the first three months post partum. The primary outcome was pain 10 days after delivery in sitting position established by Visual Analogous Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were pain scores at different time points and reported complications such as infections, dehiscence and dyspareunia one day, 10 days, six weeks and three months after delivery. RESULTS: Of 250 allocated women 54% returned questionnaires. No statistical difference was found between both groups for the primary outcome (VAS 2,8 (95% CI 2,18-3,44) vs. VAS 2,5 (95% CI 2,00-2,98), p = 0,43). With regard to secondary outcomes only self-reported dehiscence was significantly different, favouring Monocryl® (10% vs. 25%, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Use of Monocryl® 3-0 and Vicryl Rapide™ 3-0 for intracutaneous closure of the skin after mediolateral episiotomy leads to equal pain scores ten days after delivery and therefore both materials may be considered for this use. Monocryl® 3-0 might be favourable over Vicryl Rapide™ 3-0 due to less self-reported dehiscence after intracutaneous closure of the skin in mediolateral episiotomies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered under trial nr. ISRCTN29869308 on 20-04-2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5644141
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56441412017-10-26 The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial Odijk, Roeland Hennipman, Bernadette Rousian, Melek Madani, Khadija Dijksterhuis, Marja de Leeuw, Jan Willem van Hof, Arjan BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that complaints after episiotomy repair depend on the method and material used for repair. The objective of our study was to determine which of two frequently used suture materials, Monocryl® (poliglecaprone 25) and Vicryl Rapide™ (polyglactin 910), is superior for intracutaneous closure of the skin in mediolateral episiotomies. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial performed in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands between 2010 and 2013 250 primiparous women with uncomplicated mediolateral episiotomies were randomly allocated to intracutaneous skin closure with either Monocryl® or Vicryl Rapide™. All other layers were sutured with Vicryl 2-0 and Vicryl 0 in both groups. Pain scores and complications were documented using questionnaires during the first three months post partum. The primary outcome was pain 10 days after delivery in sitting position established by Visual Analogous Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were pain scores at different time points and reported complications such as infections, dehiscence and dyspareunia one day, 10 days, six weeks and three months after delivery. RESULTS: Of 250 allocated women 54% returned questionnaires. No statistical difference was found between both groups for the primary outcome (VAS 2,8 (95% CI 2,18-3,44) vs. VAS 2,5 (95% CI 2,00-2,98), p = 0,43). With regard to secondary outcomes only self-reported dehiscence was significantly different, favouring Monocryl® (10% vs. 25%, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Use of Monocryl® 3-0 and Vicryl Rapide™ 3-0 for intracutaneous closure of the skin after mediolateral episiotomy leads to equal pain scores ten days after delivery and therefore both materials may be considered for this use. Monocryl® 3-0 might be favourable over Vicryl Rapide™ 3-0 due to less self-reported dehiscence after intracutaneous closure of the skin in mediolateral episiotomies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered under trial nr. ISRCTN29869308 on 20-04-2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5644141/ /pubmed/29037181 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Odijk, Roeland
Hennipman, Bernadette
Rousian, Melek
Madani, Khadija
Dijksterhuis, Marja
de Leeuw, Jan Willem
van Hof, Arjan
The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial
title The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial
title_full The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial
title_short The MOVE-trial: Monocryl® vs. Vicryl Rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial
title_sort move-trial: monocryl® vs. vicryl rapide™ for skin repair in mediolateral episiotomies: a randomized controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5644141/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29037181
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1545-8
work_keys_str_mv AT odijkroeland themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hennipmanbernadette themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT rousianmelek themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT madanikhadija themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT dijksterhuismarja themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT deleeuwjanwillem themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vanhofarjan themovetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT odijkroeland movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT hennipmanbernadette movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT rousianmelek movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT madanikhadija movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT dijksterhuismarja movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT deleeuwjanwillem movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vanhofarjan movetrialmonocrylvsvicrylrapideforskinrepairinmediolateralepisiotomiesarandomizedcontrolledtrial